|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Monday, July 02, 2012
My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.
Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call. However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: [OTP-May] Politico: Congressional baseball game, May 1, 1926 (3319 - 2:25pm, May 19)Last: Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered CastleNewsblog: OT: The Soccer Thread, May 2013 (865 - 2:16pm, May 19)Last: Swedish ChefNewsblog: Hal Steinbrenner calls tickets 'affordable' (12 - 2:15pm, May 19)Last: Best Regards, L.M.Newsblog: Draft Features Rarest of Prospects: Redheads (60 - 2:15pm, May 19)Last: jdennisNewsblog: Cafardo: Dustin Pedroia the best second baseman in MLB? (80 - 2:14pm, May 19)Last: Arnett Mead (Arjun)Newsblog: Murray Chass: ARE RED SOX REELING ALREADY? (7 - 2:10pm, May 19)Last: MontyNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread - May 2013 (943 - 2:06pm, May 19)Last: FancyPantsHandle glistening with foreign substanceNewsblog: SoE (Megdal): It's Time to Finally Believe in the Orioles (21 - 1:53pm, May 19)Last: DanNewsblog: OMNICHATTER for May 19, 2013 (10 - 1:48pm, May 19)Last: Greg (U)KNewsblog: Weiner: The Supreme Court Judge and the Curt Flood Case reenactment (2 - 1:17pm, May 19)Last: bobmNewsblog: BtBS: Kevin Gregg Re-emerges in Chicago (3 - 1:00pm, May 19)Last: rlcNewsblog: MLB hoping for large replay expansion in 2014 (49 - 12:59pm, May 19)Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)Newsblog: Hochman: Dallas Green still tells it like it is (8 - 12:20pm, May 19)Last: bobmNewsblog: Holmes: Where does Miguel Cabrera rank among Tiger greats? (30 - 12:09pm, May 19)Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)Newsblog: Hold tight on that Moreland Express | Dallas-Fort Worth Sports News - Sports News on the Dall... (3 - 12:06pm, May 19)Last: SG
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I guess it depends on how much the sitting President venerates the Second Amendment.
I did. It's an extremely generic Spider-Man movie.
As for reverse lizardification ... I think the ACA should not only cover it, but mandate it.
As opposed to, what? I liked it better than the Toby Maguire versions, largely because I find Maguire whiny and grating; and I never cared for how they did the CGI in those movies.
So you believe in Intelligent Design then?
I dunno. I'd probably give the first two Raimi films an edge, although I can't say they're favorites, either.
Did they really need to steal the plot from the X-Men movies, though?
Of broccoli? Definitely.
Technically, all of the X-Men, Spiderman and Avengers/individual character movies *should* take place in the same universe, so plots are likely to overlap.
Must be a real #####, constantly having someone or other always wanting to turn everyone into mutants.
The third one was about turning everyone into mutants, right? Maybe I'm misremembering.
And noting that it's been used many other times doesn't really help the new movie's case, IMO.
No, it was about turning all the mutants into normal folk.
Edit: I think the third one is also the movie where Sam denies that the mutants have any rights at all.
I will only say this: Eric needs to put a boot up Charles' ##### ass.
They're not just in the same universe; they're in the same city!
As far as this new Spiderman, even the positive reviews don't make me want to see it. It sounds dull as ####.
Reading them all the part that stood out to me is that I am always astonished that the Libertarians never realize that their framework does not work. I don't mean in a theoretical way, I mean in the real world there are no nations now or in the past that followed their framework really at all.
In abstract it is a fine framework (though morally repellent I would argue) for thought experiments but has never and will never happen. And yet they curse and shake their fist against the tide that did not obey their command to halt. I guess I admire their dedication to a philosophy that is essentially irrelevant to how modern nation states operate, but that dedication does amaze me.
That said:
* I see Ray brought up the canard about why didn't liberals pool our money,and it was responded (by Shedder I think) that we did.
* I am glad I missed the terrible Name calling and death threat section. Bad on all sides. On the compassion issue I will in fact lay claim to having more compassion than any of you who honestly wish death on others or are OK with people being turned away to die on the streets. If you were not serious, then you have poor taste.
* Contraception (specifically the Pill) IS different than broccoli, right up until you can get the pill OTC (which was mentioned, but it merited another mention). If the Libertarians want to crusade the Pill should be OTC I and a bunch of other Liberals will join in. I might even "pool some money."
It really kind of is. One of the most disappointing aspects is that it gives the wonderful Emma Stone almost nothing to do, except look vaguely embarrassed to be playing a high school student. She learns Spidey's identity, but doesn't even get a good scene for that, just a lame one-liner. That's just the kind of movie it is, where the filmmakers don't seem terribly interested in the material, and hence it's a by-the-numbers reboot that covers very familiar ground.
It's not a bad movie, exactly, but words like "mediocre" were invented to describe stuff like this.
Good answer, although even in this case I think it comes down to the same processes of mutation, selection and drift. It's just that humans had a hand in the last two parts.
That's good to hear, snapper's a cool dude. Hopefully he returns soon.
Assumes that which is not in evidence. Speaking of the Canadian model, costs continue to rise even without bankruptcies and the profit motive to drive things.
I'm moderately confident that those who supported the ACA on cost cutting grounds (as opposed to cost restraining) are likely to be disappointed.
There are 3 primary areas that savings are achieved through a national care system:
A) Administrative costs. Mostly through the elimination of many of the veto points. System is basically designed to say "yes". Don't see the current state of affairs changing under ACA.
B) Prescription costs. Mostly through the system heavily promoting the use of generics (the US often pays less for any given generic. Sometimes substantially less. But they're generally not as readily available. Don't see this changing under the current system.
C) pay to doctors, nurse, etc. Whether doctors become state employees (in practice or in fact) or whether the state uses the power of being the sole entity making buying decisions there's no question that the amount that doctors make more in the US than any place else. (and yes, in practice this has led to odd things like a socialist government importing foreign strike-breakers)
Again, I don't see the ACA as having any impact on what doctors charge.
Maybe I'm wrong and the bankruptcy issue is really that large. The ACA was the best rest possible. I'm somewhat skeptical whether it's good enough. And the history of incremental changes in health care systems doesn't leave me optimistic. Canada for instance has been waiting on phase two for more than 40 years.
And yes, B and C above are "you hate freedom" things to opponents. Most governments negotiate on an "or else" basis in both areas. Big Pharma hates what they're forced to do WRT to generics and basically uses the US as a cash cow that props up their operations around the world. And the negotiations between the state and doctors (and nurses) are often extremely heavy handed.
Hmmmm, what does Big Pharma say beyond "or else"** when a patient can't afford brand name medicine that may either save his life or restore his health above the Mendoza line? And if Big Pharma weren't still able to make a profit in their dealings with all of those "most governments", they wouldn't likely be playing the game at all.
**Oh, pardon me, I forgot: Patients have a "choice" to pay or not to pay. (The Quotations of Chairman Nieporent, p. 103)
The post you quoted talks about how "the cost of health care will rise at a slower rate" - sounds like "cost restraining" to me.
As I understand it, ID allows for mutation, selection and drift - just with the guiding hand of a designer overseeing the process. I think that pretty well describes how broccoli as we know it came into being.
My sister has from time to time gotten a very good deal down the road by participating in clinical trials earlier (with the risks that entails)
And #1225 Devil's always in the details. Maybe those details will matter a lot.
Pharmaceuticals have huge R&D costs, usually not so much cost in manufacturing the pills (some substances are very expensive, like HGH when you needed to squeeze it out of tons and tons of sheep carcasses). So like an airline you can sell cheap $99 seats and make an incremental profit, but if all customers paid that you'd go bankrupt.
Conservatives/libertarians talk a good game about freedom and free trade but when it comes to letting down the barriers...? Not only that, doesn't it cost big time to allow pharmaceutical technology to have monopolies on new medicines--especially considering the long lengths of time involved. I believe Novartis will be losing its monopoly on the leukemia chemo drug (pill form) Gleevec soon, but its monopoly had to have had something to do with the fact that Gleevec is now over $4K for a month's supply. The backups to Gleevec is Bristol-Meyers's Sprycel and the Novartis's own Tasigna. Sprycel is over $8k for a 30-day supply. Tasigna is $6K a month. Sprycel and Tasigna have a good ways to go because their protected status expires. And these are just three medications for one disease. Think of the diseases their are and the medications under protection of intellectual property rights dictates. Then think the permutations possible in gaming the system.
My sister has from time to time gotten a very good deal down the road by participating in clinical trials earlier (with the risks that entails)
The point remains that "or else" is little more than a shorthand way of expressing the lopsided power balance between Big Pharma and its retail customers on the one hand, and between "most governments" and Big Pharma on the other. In both cases, with noted exceptions the final word is going to be "take it or leave it", which is the once and forever line that closes arguments between those with the upper hand and those without it.
The point of Big Pharma is to maximize its profit, and within the rules of the game, there's nothing wrong with that. If we don't like it, it's up to us to get the rules changed, or appoint people who will interpret the rules more to our liking.
But the point of governments in matters relating to health care is** to promote the overall health of its citizens, and not to be concerned with protecting Big Pharma's profit margins. If Big Pharma doesn't like that, they can always take their ball and go home.
**or should be, anyway
The Royal Navy wouldn't let them import any more slaves from Africa and the federal government wasn't doing anything about it.
Under Sam's model black men in the North had the right to be 3rd class citizens (almost certainly no right to vote, generally standing below the Irish and other second class citizens). Those in Africa (generally -- there was some smuggling) had the right not to be transported to America (enforced by the Royal Navy) and those in the South effectively gained rights if they could make it out of the South (and weren't recaptured. Given the general non-cooperation of Northern authorities not a huge risk)
Lincoln's a good example of a very conflicted person active at the time. He was pretty clear that slavery was immoral. He was equally clear that it was legal in slave states and that he had no power (or intention) to upset the status quo. And once the war started he had to balance the need to keep border states onside with his own personal views. So when Ben Butler moved too soon on the issue he reprimanded Butler. And the Emancipation Proclamation didn't touch any slaves in loyal states.
legal, constitutional, immoral -- probably the way Sam sees the state of slavery in 1860 US.
We've all have slaves in our lineage, and we all have slave-owners in our history, too. Moralizing from a modern sensibility perspective is pretty cheap. The slaves brought over were slaves in Africa (are reparations due from there?). Not to mention that even in the West there were native slaves—the Russian serf had it no easier than the African slaves (reparations anyone?). Indeed, slavery in some ways marked a step up in the evolution of civilization and culture. Because before that, in strictly tribal warfare terms, losers led lives of nomadic desperation if they were lucky. If they weren't, they were fodder and fertilizer.
Edited for clarity
you're worried about originality in a movie about a comic book superhero? especially since we're talking about a bunch of characters made up essentially by the same people (stan lee/jack kirby et al.)?
apropos of nothing, everyone here should go out and buy 'the art of daniel clowes, modern cartoonist'. it is awesome.
You say that as if intellectual property isn't the biggest political football on the internet. :-)
I think actually drugs are one of the things where patents are useful, drugs can't very well be kept as trade secrets (doctors and the FDA will want to know what the hell is in them), and they're usually cheap and easy to copy. Who in their right mind would invest $2 billion to develop one without protection?
That they do. And it's very limited, in what's offered and in the "compassionate" qualifications.
It's the commodity cheese version of charity.
That's all true. Again, I reiterate, it's not an either we have what we have or we have nothing. It's a matter of proportion--and it's not discussed. Those conservatives who are on record as to glory of all-pervading market systems and who, for instance, can't wait to get at Chinese markets don't have in mind opening Chinese production on this to the medical consumers benefit here.
Clearly this is a good counter-point, and it's one that's always raised. The question, however, isn't the original patent, but the extensions, and the granting of new patents for "new" medicines which are little more than a minor variation of the previous ones, often used as a transparent means for keeping the branded medicine out of the generic market for a period well beyond its original term.
A number of us are thinking along similar lines, it seems. Yes, R & D is costly, but companies are making billions--billions. You think there wouldn't be any R & D if there weren't all these guild-like protective restrictions and enabling. But we'll never know, I guess, because where are all these free marketeers and free trade promoters I hear about when it comes to this?
They did have a revolution that set things right. The nobility was packed off to Paris and the peasants were herded into collectives, many were deliberately starved or sent to camps. Wait a minute, something seems a bit off there...
Do you actually know this, or are you just blowing wind? Because I have had some experience with this through family members and that has been the opposite of my experience.
I have represented people, professionally and personally. Are you saying this applies to all medication from all companies? Or are you just blowing wind--wait a minute, how would that be any different that your usual MO?
The Russian serf parallel is actually interesting in comparison to American slavery in that they were formally emancipated at roughly the same time (1861). I don't know much about it but Russia 1861-1917 seems like a very interesting lesson in the problems inherent in "freeing" slaves.
I actually know an Irish dude studying Russian agricultural policy in the province of Tambov in the late 19th century. The local Zemstvos that were set up after 1861 sounded like odd little bodies. The central government wouldn't let them communicate with one another for fear of creating a rival political authority so they sort of dealt with agricultural disasters on a case by case and region by region basis. His research is mostly on two zemstvos in Tambov that reacted to the same famine is drastically different ways (though both in accordance with central government directives). One sought to stream-line the markets and ensure they were as unfettered as possible to move food around, and the other one took advantage of all the investigatory powers it had to collect huge amounts of data on all its inhabitants and redistribute food according to need.
I suppose not all of this relates to what we're talking about, but there's a fascinating transitory period between emancipation of the serfs and the Bolsheviks.
To the extent that minor variations are a" "problem" in this regard, it applies to many types of patents, not just patents for drugs.
Do you think patents on, say, wind turbines, are all massive inventions? Or patents on light bulbs or medical devices? They're almost always for minor improvements.
I don't think that IP law is that much of a political issue. I would wager that I would tend to agree with Ray or David Nieporent more on what the future state of IP law should be than I would with the majority of Congress.
IP law is an elites vs. technocrat situation where elites are being given a lot of money to defend the current status quo.
Sounds like the old tenant farmer scheme in the Old South during it's cotton is king heyday. Africans were slaves and poor whites were indentured in their own way--only they weren't regarded as valuable property. In some ways it was better to be a slave than a mere tenant (white, or black after the Civil War). As a slave you were an investment--you were property and people tend to take care of property if for no other than selfish reasons. See the Time on the Cross stuff.
To the extent that minor variations are a" "problem" in this regard, it applies to many types of patents, not just patents for drugs.
Do you think patents on, say, wind turbines, are all massive inventions? Or patents on light bulbs or medical devices? They're almost always for minor improvements.
No question about that, but the need for most products isn't quite as vital as the need for life-saving medicines, which is the point under discussion.
Indeed – see Douglas Blackmon's Slavery by Another Name for more on the situation of "re-enslaved" tenants, peons, and convicts after Reconstruction.
This is a weird issue. I think I'm in favor of reparations in principle, but I'm just not clear on:
1. Who, specifically, gets paid?
2. Who, specifically, does the paying?
and 3. How much?
Once I have a better handle on those issues, I feel like I'll have a better handle on the issue as a whole.
In the case of Russian serfs...
1. My friend Ryan of Ukranian descent
2. The former leader of the Liberal Party of Canada
3. 100 rubles
If only someone would try it, I'm sure that at least half a dozen people here would argue that we still retained the free choice to remain indoors.
Do you agree with this point?
Funny how that works. The trucking industry makes sure the feds override the states and mandates uniform mud flaps. Louisiana dairy farmers can't have their state keep out milk from the state of Mississippi. Corporations have constitutional rights when it comes to Pacs. But, somehow it's different when it comes to one group of human beings simply wanting to be treated the same as any other groups by businesses. Maybe they should have incorporated to get conservative/libertarian approval.
Is this intended as a serious comment? Laws protecting property are not exactly a wild concept.
I don't know about that, Ray. Medical research is enormously prestigious, and very amenable to public funding. It's true that the major publicly-traded pharmaceutical companies have an interest in stunning profits. But if there were a structure that regulated profits, paid scientists decent salaries, and encouraged high-profile research with significant social rewards (awards, recognition, fame), I think lots of great drugs might get developed.
Bell Labs (to name just the most obvious example) did magnificent research when it was a subsidiary of a highly-regulated corporation that had no competitors. Since deregulation, their achievements have been market-driven and sometimes that's resulted in total crap. I don't think huge profits drive good research; I don't think, at times, that they're even correlated very well.
But laws protecting people are? And laws om derogation of commerce are also? Hmmm.
But, Ray, if you think companies are entitled to those excess non-market/non-competitive profits derived from the restraint of trade and I don't, then you and people like you ought to make up the difference yourselves. Wouldn't that be fair?
French candlemakers unsuccessfully petitioned for the passage of a protectionist law mandating
:)
qualitative stuff from family RN's and DR's suggests
theory ends at that door
this legislation is our attempt to get better
there
It's probably because you secretly want to murder children. Isn't it? I read somewhere that a liberal murdered a child.
You can as a matter of law own an idea. You may think this is a bad idea -- plenty of my friends (and I work in IT, this is not a non-issue in my professional life) would agree with you. I'm personally not sure, but the fact that the US Patent Office does a consistently lousy job in the area of prior art is grating.
"One of the less observed features of the last few years has, in fact, been the intellectual honesty of conservatives like Posner or Greenspan or Bartlett or Frum. Each one of them, unlike so many who pass for conservative intellectuals these days, has his own view of the world, formed by independent thinking and study - often in the face of institutional liberal disdain. And they have shrewdly concluded that the last few years have shown that unregulated capitalism can be a serious problem, that markets do not automatically govern themselves, that the ideology of three decades ago might need revisiting in the face of the catastrophe of the Bush-Cheney years, which all but exploded the logic of neoconservatism and its domestic partner-in-crime, supply side economics. One was voodoo foreign policy, the other voodoo economics. Reality - simple empirical reality - exposed their glaring flaws.
An actual conservative will learn from this and adjust. The raving loons in the GOP base - precisely because they have no serious thinking behind them - will double-down on their fantasies, empowered by partisan hatred. And that's why the GOP needs to be defeated this fall. For the sake of an honest conservatism."
This one's a longer, related piece on John Roberts.
Actually, we just did.
Democracy! The worst of all -ocracies! (Exception: other all other -ocracies)
But of course the Liberatians have the moral high ground here, and the practical dregs. All laws restrict liberty - they are boundary conditions. I think Anarchic systems are practical... as long as resources are more or less unlimited. YOU MAY SAY I'M A DREAMER... BUT I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.
All of that was tongue in cheek. Satirizing the libertarians here, who like to complain about liberals making up words like "social contract", and "social insurance".
Paranoid fibertarians, don't you know better than to question your new mandarins and the postmodern clerics who support them? You can so totally trust us to wield the whip judiciously without any more extralegal (is that even a word? lol) executions and wars than are strictly necessary. Once you have top men like us and our various appointed administrators doling out justice via the People's Democratic Star Chamber (which is, natch, completely accountable to those jerks mincing about in black dresses), you can rest easy knowing the rights that our most acceptable philosophers have discussed into existence for you will always be safe, leagues beyond the threat of foreseeable abuse.
And if that doesn't convince you, let's just circle the wagons and laugh off anyone who points out the self-evident ethical shortcomings and real-world abuses that are the unavoidable result of our authoritarian political philosophy. See, the trick is that if you laugh often enough, eventually the joke becomes funny.
MCoA has scores of posts in this very thread, all of them well-thought-out, well-spoken, and well-reasoned. If your biggest defense is OH HE'S JOKING CAN'T FIGHT THAT, you're making an ass of yourself.
Apparently j.kaput got offended by that joke because he thinks liberals do secretly support something that falls only a little short of child murder, and it's wrong to laugh off the almost-child-murder which is an underlying goal of liberal politics. I guess it's just Poe's Law (libertarian edition) in action.
Not very effective satire when there's a massive group of people both on the right and left that agrees with every word of it. Hell, I think the words "intellectual property" conveys a totally wrong idea and contributes to the easy acceptance of infinite copyright term extensions and other evils, even if I'm not remotely a Pirate Party type.
Well, actually, that is exactly what he thinks, and has made that clear on this thread and others, and I linked this five pages ago:
You don't understand the point of satire, do you?
Hell if I know. Apparently it is to confuse and bewilder people.
I don't think wealth redistribution is all that secret, even if some liberals won't admit it straight out.
And it doesn't all get redistributed into Scrooge McDuck's money bin.
Free trade is an ideological assertion masking itself as empirical description. Intellectual property is the perfect example of this-- the state requires a huge bureaucratic and legal apparatus in order to protect what's ultimately a completely arbitrary arrangement, the rules of which are set up specifically to promote a particular configuration of commercial activity. Without that state apparatus, the system collapses into anarchy. When your system of "free" trade depends on a state apparatus to regulate the circulation and dissemination of ideas, you don't get to keep professing your love for the unfettered marketplace. This is why you can't divorce Libertarianism from its founding context, the way that its followers always try to. IP fixed particular European ideas about authorship as if those ideas were transcendental rather than specific to the ideology of the class that advocated on their behalf. Enforcing IP laws requires the state to restrict freedom in the interests of protecting a particular commercial arrangement.
In short: you can't be for maximizing individual autonomy and be an IP advocate. The latter requires severe and significant restraints on the former. This isn't necessarily an argument against IP, but you don't get to invoke the state to protect your particular IP preferences and then ##### when it makes demands in exchange for enforcing those preferences.
Stop building straw men. All governments since the dawn of time have redistributed wealth. Governments allocate collective resources. That's what they do. Crying when it happens in ways you don't like, while ignoring all the times it happens for your benefit, just makes you sound like someone in need of a remedial Civics class.
As soon as Ray straightens all of this out, I just want to know if it's kosher to record a Sterling Hayden movie tonight.
(To keep commenting on mediocre jokes, this is where the "robot" thing comes from. When Ray uses that rhetorical trick, he sounds like the sci-fi cliche of a robot asking, "what is this 'love' which hu-mans feel?")
Unless you grant the particulars of licensing deals hammered out by TMC execs after a three-drink lunch any sort of transcendental moral standing, you're probably OK, at least from an ethical standpoint. From a legal standpoint, I don't know about you, but I obey copyright laws at gunpoint. Constantly. It's gotten to the point where every time I even think about downloading Transformers: Dark of the Moon, I feel a cold steel circle pressing against my temple.
Dr. Strangelove. In a movie with some memorable performances, Hayden's Ripper may be the one that sticks with you. Ripper is crazy and crazy destructive but it's a touching portrayal. He makes political dementia very human. He makes that movie be more than just a Mad Magazine/National Lampoon nihilistic satiric romp. His Jack D. Ripper gives the movie an emotional resonance it otherwise wouldn't have. It may be the performance most vital for the movie.
Dr. Strangelove.
He had some nice supporting roles later in his career in The Godfather (corrupt police captain), The Long Goodbye, and 9 to 5.
[Puts on lawyer's slippery shapeau] Okay, I promise not to record any movies on my DVR.
And don't worry, Matt, that was just a throwaway line. I wasn't trying to throw a lamb chop past Wolfman Ray.
---------------------------------------------
Hayden has some movies he can be proud of. The Asphalt Jungle, Kubrick's take on The Asphalt Jungle, The Killing, with Hayden again. And, of course Dr. Strangelove.
The one I won't be DVRing tonight is Crime Wave, which sounds pretty sporty, and it's one I've never seen before. But besides the three you mentioned, he's also pretty good in Suddenly, The Star, and one that was just on TCM a week or two ago, Crime of Passion. When I look at his filmography I realize that TCM has been incredibly lax in not showing more than a handful of his films, especially The Killing and Naked Alibi.
Terror in a Texas Town
When I was ten or eleven, I actually snuck off and went to see this movie during the middle of the week (a no-no with my parents). About a guy out west seek revenge with a harpoon. Sort of a Rio Bravo and Captain Ahab.
If the the GOP was accurately represented by Sullivan, David Brooks, David Frum, and Jon Huntsman, this would be a better country. We could use a genuine, sane center-right Tory party in the tradition of Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41. Oh, wait, that's the post-Clinton Democratic party.
I'll grant this: Sullivan certainly comes off as insane whenever the topics of Sarah Palin or circumcision come up.
Yeah, titling the stuff on circumcision "Male Genital Mutilation" is sort of troll-baiting.
Anecdote about a cute story.
Segue to discussion on popular topic.
Explanation of how the anecdote means something deeply significant about popular topic.
NO DATA GIVEN TO SUPPORT ARGUMENT BEYOND ANECDOTE.
Self-satisfied conclusion
...
I prefer the Karl Rove GOP. At least they lie better.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main